RESUMEN
Background: We explored the feasibility of a large-scale UK ambulance services trial of optimal defibrillation shock energy for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The primary objective of this feasibility study was to establish the number of eligible patients and the number recruited. Secondary outcomes were adherence to allocated treatment and data completeness. Methods: We conducted a three-arm parallel group cluster randomised controlled feasibility study in a single ambulance service in southern England. Adult patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated for a shockable rhythm were included. Zoll X series defibrillators (clusters) were randomised to deliver 120-150-200 J, 150-200-200 J, or 200-200-200 J shock strategies. Results: Between March 2022 and February 2023, we randomised 38 eligible patients (120-150-200 J (n = 12), 150-200-200 J (n = 10), 200-200-200 J (n = 16)) to the study. The recruitment rate per cluster was 0.07 per month. The median patient age was 71 years (IQR 59-81 years); 79% were male. Twenty-eight cardiac arrests (74%) occurred in a private residence, 29 (76%) were witnessed and 32 (84%) patients received bystander CPR. Treatment adherence was 93% and completeness of clinical and electrical outcomes was 86%. At 30 days, 3/36 (8.3%) patients survived; we were unable to collect survival outcomes for two patients. Defibrillation data collection became difficult when defibrillators became separated from their allocated vehicles. Conclusion: We have demonstrated the feasibility of a cluster randomised controlled trial of optimal shock energy for defibrillation in a UK ambulance service. We have identified possible solutions to issues relating to trial design.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pain is a common symptom among patients presenting to ambulance services and is often associated with traumatic injury. Assessment and management of pain in children in the pre-hospital setting is suboptimal. This study aimed to understand the facilitators and barriers experienced by paramedics in their assessment and management of pain in children who have sustained traumatic injuries. METHODS: Face-to-face, audio-recorded semi-structured interviews using a piloted topic guide were conducted with paramedics employed by South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust. Interviews were professionally transcribed, coded manually and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eleven interviews were conducted; three themes related to assessment and three related to management were identified. Previous positive experiences of utilising pain scoring tools were identified as a facilitator to pain assessment, whereas a lack of confidence in using pain scoring tools was a barrier. Patients' understanding of and compliance with the tools were both a facilitator and a barrier to assessment. Facilitators to management included personal sub-themes of colleagues/others, exposure, being a parent, technology, severity of the injury and subjective pain scoring. Organisational facilitators included medicines, routes, and alternative methods. Situational facilitators included patient-specific solutions and parents. Five personal barriers to management included medicines, skill, consequences to self or patient, negative interactions, and limited exposure. Three organisational barriers included medicines and routes, equipment issues and choices, and training and culture. Within the theme of situation, two sub-themes emerged: patient-specific issues and environment-specific issues. Novel facilitators to emerge were those of alternative methods and being a parent. CONCLUSION: A multitude of factors incorporating situational, organisational, and personal all combine to determine how paramedics treat paediatric trauma patients. A multi-stakeholder approach to providing clearer assessment tools, improved education, equipment, and pharmacy options may improve assessment and management compliance for the benefit of the patient.
